References: [1859] EngR 769, (1859) 7 CBNS 329, (1859) 144 ER 843
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Cockburn CJ
In the lower court, the judge had directed the jury that there was a presumption, in the case of a private way or occupation road between two properties, that the soil of the road belongs usque ad medium filum viae to the owners of the adjoining property on either side.
Held: That direction was correct. The doctrine of extent ad medium filum is at common law applicable to private roads as well as public roads. The presumption may be rebutted by acts of ownership inconsistent with the result achieved by applying the presumption.
Cockburn CJ said: ‘The same principle which applies in the case of a public road, and which is the foundation of the doctrine, seems to me to apply with equal force to the case of a private road. The presumption is allowed to prevail upon grounds of public convenience, and to prevent disputes as to the precise boundaries of property; and it is based upon the supposition – which may be more or less founded in fact, but which at all events has been adopted, that, when the road was originally formed, the proprietors on either side each contributed a portion of his land for the purpose. I think that is an equally convenient and reasonable principle whether applied to a public or to a private road: but in the latter case it must of course be taken with this qualification that the user of it has been qua road and not in the exercise of a claim of ownership. If the learned judge had told the jury that the presumption was to prevail against evidence of acts of ownership, I should have said that his direction was not correct. But I do not understand that he so put it to them. He merely stated that the same presumption which arises in the case of a public way arose also in the case of a private way. But he went through the evidence as to the acts of ownership upon which the plaintiff relied as rebutting the presumption. I therefore think there is no ground for saying that there has been any substantial misdirection.’
This case is cited by:
- Applied – Smith -v- Howden ((1863) 14 CB (NS) 398, 2 New Rep 30, 143 ER 500, [1863] EngR 422, Commonlii, (1863) 14 CB NS 398, (1863) 143 ER 500)
A green lane leading to land went between plots owned by the owner and by his neighbour. There was no evidence as to the ownership of the land. The jury were informed that they could assume that the plots on either side owned a moiety of the land, . . - Cited – Paton and Another -v- Todd ChD (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 1248 (Ch))
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to, but which was registered to the respondent neighbour.
Held: The claimant’s . .
